Random Flow Generation Technique for Large Eddy Simulations and Particle-Dynamics Modeling

[+] Author and Article Information
A. Smirnov, S. Shi, I. Celik

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6106e-mail: andrei@smirnov.mae.wvu.edu

J. Fluids Eng 123(2), 359-371 (Feb 16, 2001) (13 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1369598 History: Received March 31, 2000; Revised February 16, 2001
Copyright © 2001 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Ravikanth, V., and Pletcher, R., 2000, AIAA Paper (2000-0542).
Akselvoll, K., and Moin, P., 1995, Technical Report TF-63, Stanford University.
Lund,  T., 1998, “Generation of Turbulent Inflow Data for Spatially-Developing Boundary Layer Simulations,” J. Comput. Phys., 140, p. 233.
Lee,  S., Lele,  S., and Moin,  P., 1992, “Simulation of Spatially Evolving Turbulence and the Applicability of Taylor’s Hypothesis in Compressible Flow,” Phys. Fluids A , 4, p. 1521.
Zhou, O., and Leschziner, M., Sept. 1991, “A Time-Correlated Stochastic Model For Particle Dispersion in Anisotropic Turbulence,” 8-th Turbulent Shear Flows Symp., Munich.
Zhou, Q., and Leschziner, M., 1996, “Modelling Particle Dispersion in Turbulent Recirculating Flow with an Anisotropy-Resolving Scheme,” Technical Report TFD/96/07, UMIST.
Li,  A., Ahmadi,  G., Bayer,  R., and Gaynes,  M., 1994, “Aerosol Particle Deposition in an Obstructed Turbulent Duct Flow,” J. Aerosol. Sci. 25, No. 1, p. 91.
Bechara,  W., Bailly,  C., and Lafon,  P., 1994, “Stochastic Approach to Noise Modeling for Free Turbulent Flows,” AIAA J., 32, No. 3.
Fung,  J., Hunt,  J., Malik,  N., and Perkins,  R., 1992, “Kinematic Simulation of Homogeneous Turbulence by Unsteady Random Fourier Modes,” J. Fluid Mech., 236, p. 281.
Kraichnan,  R., 1970, “Diffusion by a Random Velocity Field,” Phys. Fluids, 11, p. 22.
Ferziger, J., 1983, “Higher-level Simulations of Turbulent Flows,” J. Essers, ed., Computational Methods for Turbulent Transsonic and Viscous Flows, pp. 93–183, Hemisphere, Springer-Verlag.
Maxey,  M., 1987, “The Gravitational Settling of Aerosol Particles in Homogeneous Turbulence and Random Flow Fields,” J. Fluid Mech., 174, p. 441.
Shi, S., Smirnov, A., and Celik, I., 2000, “Large-Eddy Simulations of Turbulent Wake Flows,” Twenty-Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil, France, pp. 203–209.
Smirnov, A., Shi, S., and Celik, I., 2000, “Random Flow Simulations with a Bubble Dynamics Model,” in ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, No. 11215 in FEDSM2000, Boston, MA.
Spain, B., 1965, Tensor Calculus, Oliver and Boyd.
Hinze, J., 1975, Turbulence, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Klebanoff, P., 1954, NACA Tech. Notes, p. 3133.
Speziale,  C., 1998, “Turbulence Modeling for Time-Dependent RANS and VLES: a Review,” AIAA J., 36, No. 2, p. 173.
Ramaprian, B., Patel, V., and Sastry, M., 1981, “Turbulent Wake Development Behind Streamlined Bodies,” Technical Report IIHR Report No. 231, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of Iowa.
Nakayama,  A., and Liu,  B., 1990, “The Turbulent Near Wake of a Flat Plate at Low Reynolds Number,” J. Fluid Mech., 217, p. 93.
Larreteguy, A., 1999, “Ship-Wake Simulations,” Private Communication.
Elghobashi,  S., 1994, “On Predicting Particle-Laden Turbulent Flow,” Appl. Sci. Res., 52, p. 309.
Crowe, C.: 1998, “An Assessment of Multiphase Flow Models for Industrial Applications,” Proceeding of FEDSM’98, Vol. FEDSM-5093, Washington, DC.
Crowe, C., Sommerfeld, M., and Tsuji, Y., 1998, Multiphase Flows with Droplets and Particles, CRC Press.
Piomelli,  U., 1999, “Large-Eddy Simulation: Achievements and Challenges,” Prog. Aeronaut. Sci., 35, p. 335.
Carrica,  P., Bonetto,  D., Drew,  D., and Lahey,  R., 1998, “The Interaction of Background Ocean Air Bubble With a Surface Ship,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 28, p. 571.
Celik, I., Smirnov, A., and Smith, J. 1999, “Appropriate Initial and Boundary Conditions for LES of a Ship Wake,” 3rd ASME/JSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, Vol. FEDSM99-7851, San Francisco, CA.


Grahic Jump Location
Simulated flow-field, (a) Isotropic vorticity, (b) isotropic velocity, (c) anisotropic velocity, (d) anisotropic length-scale, (e) fluctuating velocity in the boundary layer
Grahic Jump Location
Instantaneous velocity versus time step at different locations, y*=y/δ,( a) Axial, y*=0.13,( b) vertical, y*=0.13,( c) tangential, y*=0.13,( d) axial, y*=0.46,( e) vertical, y*=0.46,( f) tangential, y*=0.46,( g) axial, y*=0.76,( h) vertical, y*=0.76,( i) tangential, y*=0.76
Grahic Jump Location
Vorticity contours in the boundary layer (a) LES (Speziale, 1998) (b) RFG (large length-scale) (c) RFG (small length-scale)
Grahic Jump Location
Convergence of velocity correlations (a) Diagonal correlations (b) Cross Correlations
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison with experimental data. (a) Fluctuating velocities, (b) axial/vertical cross correlations.
Grahic Jump Location
Normalized divergence of an anisotropic velocity field
Grahic Jump Location
The schematic of the flat plate wake
Grahic Jump Location
Turbulence intensities at the inflow boundary, (a) Stream-wise, urms, (b) span-wise, vrms, (c) vertical, wrms, (d) shear Stress, uvrms
Grahic Jump Location
Energy spectrum at different x locations, (a) Energy spectrum at the inflow boundary, (b) energy spectrum at x=0.16, (c) energy spectrum at the x=0.53
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison between simulation and measured turbulence intensity (urms). – Present simulation results at x=31.75 mm. [[dashed_line]] Present simulation results at x=158.75 mm. [[dot_dash_line]] Present simulation results at x=361.95 mm. [[dotted_line]] Present simulation results at x=590.55 mm. □ Experimental results (Ramaprian et al.,) at x=31.75 mm. ○ Experimental results (Ramaprian et al.,) at x=158.75 mm. ▵ Experimental results (Ramaprian et al.,) at x=361.95 mm. # Experimental results (Ramaprian et al.,) at x=590.55 mm.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison between simulation and measured turbulence intensity (vrms). Symbols are the same as Fig. 10.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison between simulation and measured turbulence intensity (wrms). Symbols are the same as Fig. 10.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison between simulation and measured shear stresses. Symbols are the same as Fig. 10.
Grahic Jump Location
Kinetic energy profile along the center line in the wake of a flat plate
Grahic Jump Location
Unsteady inlet velocity components: inlet conditions for LES of a ship wake. (a) Streamwise (RANS), (b) streamwise (RANS+RFG), (c) vertical (RANS), (d) vertical (RANS+RFG).
Grahic Jump Location
Turbulent velocity around a ship hull computed with the RFG algorithm, view from below
Grahic Jump Location
Bubbles in a ship wake. Background shading is according to the turbulent kinetic energy.
Grahic Jump Location
LES of a ship wake flow, (a) stream-wise velocity contours of the simulated wake flow, (b) instantaneous vertical vorticity contours




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In